Rework, possibly Cut List, "You fail X Forever"...

Acceptable Breaks from Reality isn't even a particularly good trope in itself. It's a subjective value judgement about tropes, rather than an actual trope. Of course, it's a positive subjective value judgement, so, who cares. :glare:

My $.02: The problem with "You fail X forever" was the same as the problem with "Crowning Moment of X." The standard for entry had broadened to the point where the name no longer matched up. A lot of the examples listed were more along the lines of "You get a C in one particular semester of X". Sometimes at the graduate level.

That's still too positive, even though we don't want to insult writers because in their version of quantum physics, quantums are Made of Explodium, we don't want to praise them for it either.

edited 14th Nov '10 11:27:08 AM by EternalSeptember

If we're getting rid of the negativity stuff, does that mean we can ditch Cowboy BeBop at His Computer too? That Word Salad Title has been bugging me for ages, so it would be vindicating to see it get the axe.

We aren't getting rid of anything, we just focus less on their negative side.

One subject at time, please.

If someone feels a need to think of the move as being a fiat on my part, that's okay by me. I'm here to help steer the wiki toward the high ground. I'm sure that will dismay some people, but their dismay doesn't help us make it to the high ground.

edited 14th Nov '10 11:30:28 AM by FastEddie

I'm not sure I care any-more, but for some god-forsaken reason I feel the urge to point this out:

The phrase "If someone feels a need to think of the move as being a fiat on my part, that's okay by me" sounds a lot better than what it actually means. It sounds like "I am above petty arguments as I work for the Greater Good!"

What it actually means is, "I won't listen to criticism".

edited 14th Nov '10 11:36:02 AM by girlyboy

Yes, yes, I am an evil tyrant who eats babies alive and thinks his farts smell like perfume, doing my all to crush the will of Man beneath my steely boot.

What it means is that he's keeping the central goal of the wiki (cataloguing the storytelling conventions and shorthands used by creators of fiction and entertainment) in mind and placing that central goal above anything that gets in the way, no matter how much fun some people think the side trip is.

As long as those side excursions don't interfere with the main goal of the wiki, they are tolerated.

If they turn out to enhance the main goal (like the Laconic, Quotes and Image Links) sections, they are encouraged.

If they begin to interfere, they are moved aside, like Troper Tales, the Crowning Moments, and SBIH.

If they interfere badly they are gotten rid of, like Real Life sections on contentious tropes.

edited 14th Nov '10 11:46:17 AM by Madrugada

We got a number of names in the previous thread, but maybe something like X Oddity?

And if they can be steered back to helping with the mission, they are.

Yeah, sorry. I forgot that one.

"Yes, yes, I am an evil tyrant who eats babies alive and thinks his farts smell like perfume, doing my all to crush the will of Man beneath my steely boot."

Yes, that was precisely my claim about you, Fast Eddie!

It annoys me that basically, you say: "I believe X". Twenty people say: "We disagree". You say: "Well you are wrong, and going with X is better for the wiki and that's that." Someone says: "Well, that's not a great attitude. What if you are wrong, and going with X is not actually better for the wiki? Why do you dismiss the opinions of those 20 people so easily?" You say: "Well I don't care if you think I dismiss people too easily because, as I said, I believe X." Someone says: "It seems like you are dismissing criticism." You say: "Clearly you think I am a tyrant who eats babies, you silly person who is silly. Moving on..."

edited 14th Nov '10 11:56:59 AM by girlyboy

Do we have an explanation of how calling writers fools is good for the wiki?

I used to be angry a lot about some of the decisions that Fast Eddie made.

Then, I realized that it's his website, so if once finally I'm right and he's wrong and he manages to ruin it with one of them, it will hurt him more than me, and that will be hilarious.

Or if I'm wrong, the site will be good, and I will enjoy it, and that will be hilarious as well. Win-win.

Several thousand inbounds.

edited 14th Nov '10 12:00:47 PM by EternalSeptember

I don't think calling a trope "X does not work that way" is the same as calling writers fools. Much as I don't think telling someone "you seem to dismiss criticism too easily" is the same as telling them "you are a tyrant who eats babies."

Actually, no, never mind, because while "you dismiss criticism" is, actually, a seriously-intended bit of criticism, "X does not work that way" is a not-entirely-serious, and very mild statement that basically amounts to "hey, isn't it amusing how some works of fiction portray X unrealistically?"

And yes, it's Fast Eddie's website, probably wouldn't exist without him, etc., etc. Frankly it's the dismissive attitude that bugs me, more than the decision itself.

edited 14th Nov '10 12:04:11 PM by girlyboy

New topic for this under Wiki talk perhaps?

EDIT: New pinned topic perhaps, too, looking at the way some of these views seem to be a long-running battle?

edited 14th Nov '10 12:03:31 PM by mmysqueeant

The discussion seems to be going on here, and the title is clear.

The inbounds are certainly a factor. Be back in a minute with some idea of the inbounds for the whole 'you fail x' collection.

Edit: Here we go.

edited 14th Nov '10 12:23:44 PM by FastEddie

Call it 50,000 out of 13.5 million. Around .004.

I suppose a good comaprison set would be Applied Phlebotinum, which is similar in that it is about stuff that ain't right and differs by not being snide. Back with some counts for that in a bit.

edited 14th Nov '10 12:30:45 PM by FastEddie

Sorry, that wasn't clear. I didn't mean for this topic.

I meant for the little sub-topic that was derailing it into a debate about Darth Wiki et al's place or otherwise in relation to the main wiki.

Oh, that. Sure, if you want to open the topic, go for it.

I've added the phlebotinum numbers to that output file above. Call it 91,000 out of 13.5 million. About .006.

Woops. Forgot to include the index itself. Make it 104,000 or .007.

I think a case could be made that positive-to-neutral has better 'legs' for inbounds.

edited 14th Nov '10 12:49:16 PM by FastEddie

That is a significant difference, but Applied Phlebotinum is one of the more well-known, big giant tropes (it's a Trope Of Legend!). To be fair you're comparing it to the whole list of all them "Fail X" indexes, but nonetheless, there's nothing to really show that it's positive vs. negative article title or "feel" that explains the difference in numbers here.

edited 14th Nov '10 1:00:37 PM by girlyboy

"...there's nothing to really show that it's positive vs. negative article titles that cover the difference in numbers here."

I thought "make title less negative" is a goal unto itself, and not based on whether it's good or bad for page numbers.

We are not talking about incredibly negative titles here. "You fail X Forever" is hardly some sort of "this work is awful and bad" thing that belongs on the Darth Wiki, and the rename that got the most votes, "X Does Not Work That Way," is even less obviously negative.

Why is it intrinsically good to replace these titles with more "positive" ones, or to re-write the entire pages to make them more positive?

You just added the whole phlebotinum index together? From Aesoptinum to Zillion-Dollar Bill?

Many of these are very distantly related to the concept we are discussing, and anyways, wouldn't it be more fair to compare it to all the Did Not Do The Research pages instead, from A Nuclear Error to Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe, including the four indexes like Hollywood X, Index Failure Space Does Not Work That Way and You Fail Indexes Forever?

edited 14th Nov '10 1:05:24 PM by EternalSeptember